Samsung and Apple have made some pretty interesting evidence requests in recent joint court filings. Apple is specifically asking that Walter Isaacson's official biography of Steve Jobs isn't admitted as any kind of evidence, likely considering it illustrates Jobs' unbridled ire for Android, and that it would color Apple's complaints as founded on emotion rather than technology. Apple also wanted any and all Samsung logos in the courtroom (on TVs, for example) to be obscured, lest it subconsciously affect the jury. Apple also doesn't want their factory working conditions to enter into the conversation, which, though gaining a lot of press, aren't directly related to any patents in question.

Samsung has a few requests of their own, too. For one, they want all exclude all non-expert opinion from proceedings, including that of Apple-related blogs. I guess that means us, eh? Dang. Samsung also wants to bar testimony from Henry Urbach, who is an Apple expert on the cultural significance of Apple -- something Samsung feels is "not helpful to the jury". They also want to bar Sanjay Sood, an expert at Apple on consumer decision making, who would likely harp on Apple's DNA in design.

The case is scheduled to go to court on July 30, though that date is likely to be pushed back due to the sheer breadth of complaints Apple has against Samsung. Odds are good that this case will go on for a loooooong time, so get comfortable and grab some popcorn. Ii'm having a hard time picking a side on this, but my guess is that both sides will end up making compromises of some kind and ultimately. Anyone taking bets on who will end up on top?

If you haven't had a chance to read Isaacson's book, definitely take the time to check it out; it provides a very interesting look at Apple, where it came from, and where it's going now that Jobs is gone.

If Sanjay Sood is an expert on consumer decision making, and Apple’s DNA in design or their ID then I would say that is key to the case. Without this type of testimony from both sides I'm not sure if a jury would get a full understanding of the case and its implications.

it's been a good time to be a patent attorney for 20 years. It surely didn't just start with apple's litigation. Anyone from drug companies to people making guitars need a patent. It's lucrative but very specialized.